using soil science principles for wetland mitigation ... · follow-up soil descriptions on...

Using Soil Science Principles for Wetland Mitigation, Voluntary

Restoration and Creation

W. Lee Daniels and many, many more

http://www.landrehab.org

Objectives • Describe common created wetland soil limitations

observed over 20 years of collaborative research

• Address three commonly held fallacies about wetland creation:

1. Just make it “wet enough”; soils don’t matter. 2. 5% OM is a magic level for wetland creation. 3. You can’t create wetlands in coarse-textured substrates.

• Review the development and essential components of created wetland soil reconstruction guidance protocols

Fort Lee Drainage Gradient Studied by Cummings (a.k.a. Whitehead; 1999). One of > 20 VDOT sites studied

Wet/Ponded

Poorly Drained

Ref well

Recreated soil in “poorly drained” (?) Position

Native soil ~ 300 feet away at similar elevation

Hydroperiod of created soil vs native soil at Ft. Lee

Compacted created soil in intermediate drainage (poorly d.) class at Fort Lee. Most of these soils supported facultative upland to upland vegetation and did not support redox feature development.

Why?

Differential Soil Properties at Fort Lee (Cummings, 1999)

0-15 cm pH % C % N

Reference 4.76 2.89 0.18

Mitigation 5.31 0.82 0.07

Differential Soil Properties at Fort Lee (Cummings, 1999)

Bulk Density g/cm3

Surface (0-15 cm)

Subsurface (70 cm)

Reference 0.71 1.42

Mitigation 1.75 1.71

Similar findings also reported for 10 VDOT sites statewide in 2006 report.

Stolt’s Buried Bag Study; follow-up work at Fort Lee

Upland Fe-rich soil plus organic (~2.5% Acer rubrum leaves) amendments wrapped in nylon bag ready to go back into the ground.

Added to created wetland

soils at two depths

Stolt’s Buried Bag Study

• Old clod (+ C) removed after several years in the field, with the nylon bag carefully pulled away.

• Note: this drove several lab technicians into early retirement!

Stolt et al. (1998) “Buried Bag Study”

• Peds amended with organic matter lost OM and DCB-extractable Fe at 0.5 to 1.0 g/kg/yr.

• Peds that were not amended with organic matter gained Fe at rates up to 2.0 g/kg/yr.

• Organic matter coatings, Fe-masses on ped exteriors, iron enriched pore linings, and depletions in ped interiors formed in 2 years

In: Quantifying Soil Hydromorphology, SSSA, 1998

Site for Charles City Wetland (CCW) OM Loading rate experiment, first built in 1997 & 1998; modified by VDOT several times thereafter.

Surface soil at CCW in 2002 after preliminary “remediation efforts”

Note massive structure in surface breaking to firm plates at about 20 cm.

This directly limits rooting, litter to soil incorporation, subsoil microbial biomass, and therefore redox process and associated development of features!

Both experiments combined tillage (disk and roto-tiller) plus wood waste compost amendment at 25, 50, 100 and 150 dry tons per acre.

Wood fines compost at 56 Mg/ha

Or 25 T/Ac

Wood fines compost at 336 Mg/ha or 150 T/Ac dry.

Cara Bergschneider, 2005 MS Thesis

Described soil morphology, soil physical & chemical properties and vegetation response in 2003-2004; two years after treatment application.

Results: Pedogenesis 0 Mg/ha rate 56 Mg/ha (25 T/ac; < 2.5% OM)

Results: Pedogenesis

224 Mg/ha rate

112 Mg/ha rate 336 Mg/ha rate

Results: Tree growth Average (n=4) Betula nigra (river birch) height growth as affected by compost loading rate. Significant differences by Wilcoxon rank sums. Quercus palustris did not respond.

a

bb

b b

aa

b

bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 56 112 224 336

Compost Loading Rate (Mg/ha)

Gro

wth

(cm

)

CCW-Dry, p<0.07

CCW-Wet, p<0.05

Bailey found that OM loadings had little effect on herbaceous vegetation, but did result in increased tree growth. Optimal addition was 112 Mg/ha (50 T/Ac).

Long term effect of original compost loading (112 Mg/ha – 50 T/ac) at CCW dry experiment – Summer 2015.

You can’t create a wetland in a sand? “In general, mitigation sites contained more sand and less clay than reference sites at 20 cm ……Whatever their origin, these textural differences may have important implications in the success of wetland creation projects as coarser textures are characteristically loose, well aerated and drained (Brady, 1984)”. Bishel-Machung et al., 1996. Soil Properties of Reference Wetlands and Wetland Creation Projects in Pennsylvania. Wetlands 16(4): 532-541.

This was interpreted by many state and federal

regulators to mean that you could not build

created wetlands in coarse-textured substrates.

This was despite the fact that we had over 150,000

acres of coarse-loamy hydric soils in Virginia!

WWB Earle

Richmond

Weanack/199 Wetland

Experimental site before any amendments. Comprised of

sandy dredge sediments placed in 1960s and 1970s.

Experimental area graded and flagged. Note uniform brown

and oxidized sediment colors across the site.

Experimental Plot Weanack/Shirley Wetland Experiment Plot

Treatments1. Fertilized control N1. Fertilized control N2. 1x compost @ 78 Mg/ha

Plot #

Treatment #6.1m

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 4 2 5 1 3 1

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

5 1 3 2 4 5 2

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

4 2 1 4 5 1 3

N2. 1x compost @ 78 Mg/ha3. 2x compost @ 156 Mg/ha4. Topsoil + 1x compost

Port Weanack Cove ↑

Access Road- Berm

6.1m

5. Topsoil only

30.5

m

79.2m

1x = 35 wet tons per acre

Compost was

added to all

plots and to

simulated

pit floors and

mounds

working at low

tide.

Experimental area after hummock installation

and application of topsoil. Picture shot 3 hours after

adjacent high tide.

Pits quickly filled with finer-textured local and flood-tide sediments

Mike Nester working at Weanack wetland describing intact soil plug pulled from a “mini-pit”

Distinct redox concentrations and depletions (F3; depleted matrix) formed in replaced upland topsoil within three years. Also note distinct band of concentrations at topsoil/sand contact.

Photo from 2009 of high compost addition treatment vs. original soil from berm.

Image of control plot soil (sand; fertilizer only taken 11/8/15. Note significant accumulation of OM in surface and low chroma below. Detailed study by Emily Ott (PhD student) & John Galbraith is ongoing.

Bald cypress in pit (left) vs. mound (right). Note other woody stems invading.

Pietrzykowski et al. found no effects of original soil treatments on any tree growth parameters, but trees growing in pits were taller, larger and had more butt swell. Trees in pits also had more competition from other invaders like Salix nigra and Acer rubrum.

Recommendations for Reconstructing Hydric Soils

(assuming hydrology is correct!)

• Regrade the subsoil layer of the site, making all efforts to minimize compaction and limit rutting and smearing.

• Rip and/or chisel plow the subsoil layer to attain a non-limiting soil bulk density (e.g. 1.35 for a clayey subsoil and 1.75 for a sand). Use high-flotation tires if possible!

Recommendations for Reconstructing Hydric Soils

• Whenever possible, salvage and direct haul natural hydric or other native topsoil layers to form the new soil’s A horizon.

• Supplement non-hydric soil materials with sufficient suitable organic amendments at 25 to 50 dry tons per acre and thoroughly incorporate the materials to 4 to 6 inches.

Recommendations for reconstructing Hydric Soils

• Disk and/or rip the replaced hydric soil or the manufactured soil zone to remediate any grading associated compaction.

• Wherever possible/feasible/economic, rebuild hummocks etc., to recreate micro-topographic variability.

• Apply any available leaves, wood chips, or other debris as a surface mulch.

Avoid sulfidic materials at all costs! Mattaponi Wetland; bare ground in rear was pH 3.1 as is the wetland floor when it dries down in the summer. Around 25% of VDOT Coastal Plain sites hit sulfidic materials which will then require high liming rates, etc.

COE/DEQ, Norfolk District Corps and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Recommendations

for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Including Site Design, Permit Conditions, Performance and Monitoring

Criteria - July, 2004

http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/Portals/31/docs/regulatory/guidance/Annotated_Corps-DEQ_Mit_7-

04.pdf

Soil bulk density, organic matter content and overall soil reconstruction procedures

are detailed by:

So, how do I determine “hydric soil success”? • Learn how to accurately and completely describe soil

morphology, particularly redox features!

• Carefully describe soil morphology (a) before any site disturbance and then (b) immediately after final creation/restoration. Quantify/count redox feature abundance; don’t simply place them into classes (e.g. few vs. many).

• At a pre-determined interval (e.g. 1, 3 and 5 yr?), conduct follow-up soil descriptions on “mini-pits” excavated to 30 cm+ and carefully quantify color, redox feature abundance, etc.

• If the soil is “moving in the right direction”, you should be able to detect and quantify (a) development of lower overall chroma and (b) increased redox concentrations, pore linings, or other features.

Acknowledgments • Funds for various portions of this research

were provided by VDOT and Weanack Land LLLP.

• Thanks to all the students, post-docs and research staff cited in this talk. Too many to list!

• I particularly want to thank Jim Perry (VIMS) and Rich Whittecar (ODU) for their input over the past 20 years.